Category Stacy Makhnevich

If a professional reputation is to be protected at all costs, should a healthcare provider file a lawsuit against a patient for a negative online review?

From time to time we see news items about doctors or dentists who threaten legal action against patients. But suing a patient for a negative comment (or comments) is likely to be a bad idea. In fact, it just might be the worst thing to do.

We can sympathize with a practitioner’s frustration and outright anger. Negative comments and online reviews can be untrue, unkind and one sided. What’s more, we’ve never met a doctor, dentist, physician, surgeon or other healthcare provider who isn’t fiercely protective of his or her personal and professional reputation.

Their reputation—real or perceived, in person or online—is the sum of everything they do. And from a physician marketing perspective, their personal and practice reputation is at the heart of their brand and branding message. It’s no wonder that healthcare providers—doctors in particular—are highly sensitive and sometimes nearly fanatical about any and all reflections on their reputation.

We’re not offering legal advice here, but we discussed the concept of online comments with our friend and noted healthcare attorney Stephen Kaufman. He told us, “Sometimes I can convince the website to pull the [offending] comment. Sometimes, we write a reply. But I have never sued, and I’m hard-pressed to imagine a circumstance where I would recommend doing so.”

And while a lawsuit may “feel” justified, there are good reasons to reconsider the temptation for a dentist or physician to “strike back” in court. From a healthcare public relations and marketing perspective.

The “doctor-sues-patient” story is likely to grab much more media attention than the original patient review. A small local story can suddenly go national. It’s the PR equivalent to throwing gasoline on embers. It’s going to ignite a flash fire with an explosive downside and not much of an upside.

The general public is likely to identify with–and sympathize with–the patient, not the doctor. Other doctors might quietly commiserate a little, but in the larger “court of public opinion” the doctor may be seen as the villain for starting a fight.

The Internet Search Engines will also take notice. Any ensuing controversy about the lawsuit will itself capture high page rankings and will continue to appear in Google search results—and overshadow any positive marketing efforts—perhaps for years.

And then there are the legal costs, the prospect of counter claims and the drain on personal and professional time and resources.

Our comments here do not refer to the merits of any specific situation, and it’s always a good idea to seek professional legal counsel regarding your situation. Physician-rating websites and online reviews and commentary provide patients with a channel to publish their feelings—good, bad or otherwise—about physician performance.

A study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found the majority of such reviews (88%) to be positive, six percent were neutral and six percent were negative.

In our experience, the concept of a healthcare provider suing a patient for an “unfriendly” review should be approached with considerable care. It’s likely to be a “legally dumb” healthcare marketing and PR move.

Stewart Gandolf is CEO of Healthcare Success Strategies, a medical marketing and health care advertising agency. He is also a frequent writer and speaker.

I’m not so worried about the ability of Kim Dotcom to keep letting people download free movies from the Web. I’m more worried about Dennis Laurion.

You haven’t heard of Dennis Laurion? To me, he’s a bigger victim of overreach in the new world of online idea exchange.

Laurion’s father had been treated by Dr. David McKee, a neurologist in Duluth, Minnesota. Laurion apparently did not like some of the things that happened during that treatment, and so he posted his thoughts on at least three consumer rating sites. That’s why those sites exist, so that patients can share their knowledge But McKee thought that Laurion was hurting his business, and so he sued to shut Laurion up.

One would think that a suit like this would be laughed out of court, and it was by St. Louis County District Court. But McKee did not take no for an answer. He appealed, and last month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, sent the case back to district court for trial.

[[ Laurion was critical of the treatment his father, Kenneth, received from McKee after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke and spending four days at St. Luke’s hospital from April 17-21 of 2010. The appellate court determined McKee’s defamation suit should proceed regarding six claims Laurion publicly made about McKee.

[[ That McKee told the patient he had to “spend time finding out if you were transferred or died.’’

[[ That McKee said, “44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option.’’

[[ That McKee said, “You don’t need therapy.’’

[[ That McKee said, “It doesn’t matter’’ that the patients gown did not cover his backside.

[[ That McKee left the patient’s room without talking to the patient’s family.

[[ That a nurse told Laurion that McKee was “a real tool.” ]]

McKee sounded a triumphant note in the Tribune, but Laurion was understandably bummed by the ruling. He wrote to the Tribune: ” While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member…I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, writing 19 letters, and posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again, although, to the best of my knowledge, the published statements were made with sincerity.”

Frequent Antidote readers might recognize a pattern here. We wrote last year about doctors and clinics have been trying to force patients to sign away their rights to review medical services on websites. And we wrote about one dentist who had threatened to sue a patient who had written a Yelp review about him.

Might McKee have a point? He very well might. Patients and their families are often emotional and under extreme stress during an illness or surgery. Sensitivities can run high, and something could be misinterpreted. But what disturbs me is the trend toward creating an environment where patients are too scared to report their legitimate criticisms.

Online review sites should not be a forum for falsehoods, but defamation suits against patients who post legitimate critiques of medical services are a threat to free speech and a threat to safe medicine.